Hat In

Ron Paul is now officially in the race for the Republican nomination. (Conical hat tip to Lew Rockwell.) With Hagel still playing coy, this makes Paul the clear antiwar choice in the Republican pack – and of course Paul, unlike Hagel, was against the damn thing from the start.

I have plenty of problems with Ron Paul – most notably on immigration, abortion, and gay rights. But he is astronomically superior to any other Republican candidate out there; I wish him well, and hope he shakes up the GOP plenty.

Well, like I said, the main things (leaving aside such obvious points as: he’s not an anarchist, and he’s not a left-libertarian) are:

a) he’s strongly anti-immigration whereas I’m pro-open-borders;

b) he’s anti-abortion whereas I’m pro-choice — though he wants to turn it back to the states rather than having a federal ban, plus he doesn’t consider the morning-after pill a form of abortion;

c) he’s against gay rights — not just against same-sex marriage but, even worse IMHO, against the right of same-sex couples to adopt — though again I gather this is something he wants to leave to the states rather than imposing a federal ban.

d) I guess I can add: he’s for the death penalty, I’m against. Though I suppose he favours leaving this up to the states too.

Of these four the worst from my point of view is immigration since the other ones could in some contexts be defended on grounds of decentralisation (my views on this are complicated, but see the last section of this piece) whereas his anti-immigration proposals don’t have even that defense.

I have some other disagreements but I can’t remember what they are at the moment.

Still, on something like 94% of the issues he’s really quite radically libertarian.

Um. Where do you see that Paul is against the Death Penalty. Regarding Same sex marriage, he certainly doesn’t think the fed should be meddling in that, so if he’s a President that’s a bit of a non-issue. He also believes Abortion — like any other type of Murder, should constitutionally be a state issue, so ditto on that.

Frankly, I agree with him on immagration. I agree with Herman-Hoppe’s Analysis that IF the unnessessary evil of Government does exist one of it’s functions should be an immigration policy that protects the value of the taxpayers. Plus we don’t need anymore groups moving here to vote for more socialism. Frankly, if all the socialism would be abolished, it wouldn’t be an issue — which is basically Ron Paul’s possition. He’s certainly not near as draconian about the issue as Tancredo.

I hope all these anti-voting libertarians and anarchists register republican and at least vote for him in the R Primeries. Paul, if he actually got ellected, would abolish a good 90% of the current federal government structure, simply by vetoing every new bill, bringing all the troops home, and abolishing all the unconstitutional executive agencies.

That’s darn close to anarchy compaired to where we are now. Plus Paul is a libertarian. So their are areas in which he’ll push for less federal involvement then even the Constitution allows.

No, Paul has been a consistent and stalwart opponent of the Patriot Act and its various ilk.

Tracy,

Um. Where do you see that Paul is against the Death Penalty.

Nowhere. I said he is for the death penalty.

I agree with Herman-Hoppe’s Analysis that IF the unnessessary evil of Government does exist one of it’s functions should be an immigration policy that protects the value of the taxpayers. Plus we don’t need anymore groups moving here to vote for more socialism.

If the fear that immigrants will vote for socialism (I don’t know of any evidence that immigrants are more socialistic than native-born Americans, but I’ll play along) is a reason not to let immigrants move into the country, why isn’t it an equally good argument for forcing pro-socialist American citizens to be deported from the country? What’s the difference? In both cases the government is using the fear that people might vote the wrong way as grounds for restricting where they can live, work, and travel.

Nuttiness. How is the rejection of official
recognition/sanction of homosexual unions as
marriage a denial of rights? Does Roderick Long
wish to see the Church forced to accept gay
marriage, or businesses forced to extend benefits
to gay couples who claim marriage bonds? It would not surprise me to see him sympathize with the former position, but supporting the latter would be rather out of place for a Rothbardian. So, I’m guessing his complaint comes down to a rather mundane objection over federal tax policy and advocacy that the relevant exemptions be extended to gay couples. How inspiring.

Dan,
I can’t speak for Dr. Long, but I think it’s more complicated than tax policy. I advocate the total privatization of marriage. I think that in privatized marriage gay people would be able to get the legitimacy and recognition that they seek for their relationships, without having to slug it out in the political arena. However, the state has taken over marriage, and I believe it has no business discriminating once it has chosen to intrude on what should be a civil institution. If people insist on government sanctioned marriage, it should be everybody or nobody. The state should not be in the marriage business, but it absolutely should not be in the morality, discrimination, or “society-shaping” business. I’m also sort of small and mean and believe that people who want the government to “protect” marriage deserve whatever they get (I forget who said that democracy is the belief that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard). Maybe once they get their butts handed to them in the political arena and state-regulated marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, polygamists, and every other relationship that consenting adults freely choose to engage in, they’ll eventually realize that marriage really is a private matter for civil society.

It would be good if the advocates of “privatizing”
marriage (including, presumably, libertarian
supporters of gay marriage) would define exactly what they mean by marriage. Then, we could better evaluate rather grandiose claims about the state “taking over” marriage. (BTW let’s skip the prententiousness about being opposed to the govt legislating morality; left-libertarians support the legislation of morality as much as any religious conservative, they simply differ on the nature of the morality to be legislated.)

Nothing in the least prevents gay couples from proclaiming themselves to be “married,” anymore than proclaiming themselves to be the King and Queen of England, but much prevents them from requiring others to recognize such unions *as* marriage. Hence the need for advocates of gay marriage to “slug it out” in the political arena. This is the heart of the issue, and hiding behind vagaries about marriage privatization won’t change this fact.

Does Roderick Long wish to see the Church forced to accept gay marriage, or businesses forced to extend benefits to gay couples who claim marriage bonds?

Of course not. Is that a serious question??

So, I’m guessing his complaint comes down to a rather mundane objection over federal tax policy and advocacy that the relevant exemptions be extended to gay couples. How inspiring.

There are many rights that married couples have that gay couples are denied, such as rights to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner. I noted the right of adoption as one of the most important of these; in 1999 Paul voted for legislation making it illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children in the District of Columbia.

left-libertarians support the legislation of morality as much as any religious conservative, they simply differ on the nature of the morality to be legislated

That’s a remarkable claim. Could you give an example of a way in which left-libertarians “support the legislation of morality” (over and above the non-aggression principle)?

Based on his examples of “rights” supposedly enjoyed by heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples, I am wondering if Roderick Long is confusing positive rights with negative rights? Did the legislation Ron Paul voted against really prohibit gay couples from adopting children from willing orphanages, or was it more a means of preventing gays from using the legal system to force unwilling orphanages to grant them priveleges? My question about his position on legislation that would have the likely effect of compelling private parties into arrangements they find abhorrent was quite serious.

“That’s a remarkable claim. Could you give an example of a way in which left-libertarians “support the legislation of morality” (over and above the non-aggression principle)? ”

Based on his examples of “rights” supposedly enjoyed by heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples, I am wondering if Roderick Long is confusing positive rights with negative rights?

Do you have an argument for the claim that I’m making this confusion, or are you just “wondering”?

For what it’s worth, I don’t see why A’s negative rights should cease to be considered negative rights when B exercises them by legitimate proxy on A’s behalf.

Did the legislation Ron Paul voted against

He voted for it.

really prohibit gay couples from adopting children from willing orphanages, or was it more a means of preventing gays from using the legal system to force unwilling orphanages to grant them priveleges?

I haven’t read the details of the legislation. But clearly Paul wanted straights to be able to do something and gays not to be able to do that something. If the something was legitimate, then the legislation was an unjust restriction on the freedom of gays. If the something wasn’t legitimate, then the legislation was granting an unjust privilege to straights. Seems problematic either way.

My question about his position on legislation that would have the likely effect of compelling private parties into arrangements they find abhorrent was quite serious.

You know I’m a Rothbardian anarchist, right?

“That’s a remarkable claim. Could you give an example of a way in which left-libertarians “support the legislation of morality” (over and above the non-aggression principle)?”
Your parenthetical statement is a text-book example.

So you think protecting people from having morality legislated upon them is itself an example of legislating morality? Doesn’t that rather strip the concept of all usefulness? It’s like saying just about everything is a chair because just about everything is something you can sit on.

In a Rothbardian world, would there be any “right”
to adopt? Of course not; couples (or individuals)
could *petition* orphanages to adopt children;
those orphanages are under no obligation to grant
these petitions. Heterosexual couples have no more right than homosexual couples to adopt.

Let’s note that in our current, non-Rothbardian world, there is NO legal sanction against gay couples petitioning orphanages to adopt children. They have as much “right” to do this as straight couples. Of course, there may be legal sanctions against orphanages granting such requests; I really don’t know, but neither does Roderick Long (as by his own admission he hasn’t bothered to actually read the legislation that so incenses him). Thus, if anyone’s rights are being violated here, it seems that it is the orphanage’s right to contract with those they see fit.

Certainly, *this* violation of the orphanage’s rights is anti-libertarian, and I would agree with Roderick Long that it should be opposed. But that’s not really what he’s angling for, is it?

It seems to me that all this talk about “gay rights” is a cover for a different agenda.

Also, I should add that in our current non-Rothbardian (really anti-Rothbardian) world, allowing orphanages to contract with those they want to as well as those they *don’t* want to would open them up to lawsuits under “anti-discrimination” law. Much of what the gay lobby wants opens the way for an increase in State power, so there may in fact be prudent reasons to oppose these objectives, even if there is a partial point (e.g., the *orphanage’s* rights, not the alleged gay’s rights).

Of course, there may be legal sanctions against orphanages granting such requests; I really don’t know, but neither does Roderick Long (as by his own admission he hasn’t bothered to actually read the legislation that so incenses him). Thus, if anyone’s rights are being violated here, it seems that it is the orphanage’s right to contract with those they see fit.

But if X is forbidden to contract with Y, this is surely a violation of both X’s and Y’s rights, not just X’s.

Certainly, *this* violation of the orphanage’s rights is anti-libertarian, and I would agree with Roderick Long that it should be opposed. But that’s not really what he’s angling for, is it?It seems to me that all this talk about “gay rights” is a cover for a different agenda.

Really? So what am I angling for? What’s my agenda? If you’re going to accuse me of advocating rights-violations or disguising my true aims I’d like to see some evidence for those charges. My advocacy of gay rights is entirely confined to opposition to the use of government power to diminish or enhance anybody’s rights on the basis of sexual orientation. (To be sure, I also advocate broader pro-equal-treatment-for-gays social changes, but I don’t regard those as matters of rights and so not something that can legitimately be enforced.)

Also, I should add that in our current non-Rothbardian (really anti-Rothbardian) world, allowing orphanages to contract with those they want to as well as those they *don’t* want to would open them up to lawsuits under “anti-discrimination” law.

Right. But obviously I’m opposed to laws imposing anti-discrimination rules on private parties. So what has that got to do with the present topic?

“But if X is forbidden to contract with Y, this is surely a violation of both X’s and Y’s rights, not just X’s. ”

If this is obviously so, I can’t say that I see it.

“Right. But obviously I’m opposed to laws imposing anti-discrimination rules on private parties. So what has that got to do with the present topic? ”

Because much of what you advocate amounts to *state* recognition of certain arrangements that are otherwise not forbidden. E.g., gays are completely free to call their unions “marriages” today; no one else is obliged to recognize such unions as marriage. Once, however, the State confers legitimacy on such declarations, other parties will be obliged to recognize these as well. Do you really doubt that, once the State recognizes gay marriage, that lawsuits will be filed against businesses that do not extend benefits to gay couples?

““But if X is forbidden to contract with Y, this is surely a violation of both X’s and Y’s rights, not just X’s. ”

If this is obviously so, I can’t say that I see it.”

Or, let’s put it this way: even if your position is unassailable, the conclusion is that there is a *dual* rights violation: it makes no sense to speak of X-rights or Y-rights here. Obivously, when left-liberals speak of “gay-rights,” we know what they really want. A libertarian should be more careful when using such terminology.

Okay, imagine that the King passes a law mentioning you in particular, by name, and decreeing that no one is allowed to sell or give you food, nor are they allowed to sell or give you either tools for growing your own food or land on which such food can be grown. If you approach someone attempting to obtain food, nothing will be done directly to you, but anyone who does help you in this manner will be punished. Does it really seem to you that the injustice here is only to everyone else, and not to you? I would say on the contrary that you are the primary (though of course not the sole) victim of the law. (After all, for one thing the law is a death sentence for you, and merely a nuisance for everyone else.)

Or, let’s put it this way: even if your position is unassailable, the conclusion is that there is a *dual* rights violation: it makes no sense to speak of X-rights or Y-rights here.

I agree entirely with what you say before the colon, but not with what you say afterward. Since it seems to be a negative attitude toward gays, not toward orphanages, that motivates the law, then although it violates the rights of both, I think it makes sense to describe the law as fundamentally anti-gay (the gays are the targets, while orphanages are merely incidental victims) — just as Jim Crow laws, while violating the rights of both blacks and whites (since e.g. the white-owned bus companies were legally forbidden to allow blacks to sit in the front even if they had wanted to — as in fact some of the companies, for economic reasons, did), were obviously primarily anti-black — or just as the imaginary law I described above was primarily anti-you .

Obivously, when left-liberals speak of “gay-rights,” we know what they really want. A libertarian should be more careful when using such terminology.

Well, different left-liberals want different things; they’re not exactly ideologically homogeneous. But in any case, if both libertarians and left-liberals, while having different views as to some of the content of justice, both agree that gays are the victims of systematic injustice, I don’t see why “gay rights” isn’t as good a term for the libertarian’s position as for the liberal’s.

To put it another way: why let the statists steal all the terms of the debate? We were pioneers of feminism, antiracism, etc., etc., long before they were.

E.g., gays are completely free to call their unions “marriages” today; no one else is obliged to recognize such unions as marriage. Once, however, the State confers legitimacy on such declarations, other parties will be obliged to recognize these as well. Do you really doubt that, once the State recognizes gay marriage, that lawsuits will be filed against businesses that do not extend benefits to gay couples?

I agree that no private party should be compelled to recognise same-sex marriages. But I also think no private party should be compelled to recognise heterosexual marriages either. My preference would be for government to butt out of the marriage business entirely. (Well, and out of the existence business while we’re at it.) But most of those who oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage don’t seem to oppose with anything like equal fervor the legal recognition of homosexual marriage, which suggests that something other than devotion to liberty motivates them.

The “primary” nature of the scenarios you describe is that property acquired through the *exchange* of (presumably) justifiably controlled/owned property is declared illegitimate by the State (and hence such transfers are to be opposed by force). There are necessarily, then, *two* parties involved here. The King’s decree does not initiate force against my physical person, nor does it deny me the use of those unowned objects I *unilaterally* homestead. There has to be *another* party involved for a rights-violation (via State prosecution) to occur. (Also, it is an empirical question as to the extent of this rights-violation: in a kingdom where everyone despised me and would not associate with me under any circumstances, such a law, while objectionable under libertarian grounds, would be entirely superfluous.)

Hence I cannot be identified as the “primary” victim here. Perhaps you are confusing the intent of the law (harming me) with the essence of the law (banning certain binary relations)? A similar analysis applies to the gay/black/leftist-flavor-of-the-month case we are discussing.

BTW I too oppose forcing businesses to grant benefits to the normal families of employees. But the fact is, there are laws mandating such benefits, so an expansion of what a family constitutes (e.g., to artificial unions of homosexuals) would amount to an increase of State power.

True, but that the fact that there are two victims doesn’t mean that the two are equally victims.

Perhaps you are confusing the intent of the law (harming me) with the essence of the law (banning certain binary relations)?

I agree with Aquinas’s position that the essence of an action is determined by both its object (= its immediate aim) and its end (= its ultimate aim).

Also, it is an empirical question as to the extent of this rights-violation: in a kingdom where everyone despised me and would not associate with me under any circumstances, such a law, while objectionable under libertarian grounds, would be entirely superfluous.

From the fact that it would be superfluous in such a case, I can’t see that it follows that it wouldn’t be a violation of your rights. Your death would then be overdetermined, by two different mechanisms, but one of them can be a rights-violation even if the other isn’t. Analogously, I violate your rights if I forbid you to become a Buddhist, even if you have no interest in becoming a Buddhist.

But the fact is, there are laws mandating such benefits, so an expansion of what a family constitutes (e.g., to artificial unions of homosexuals) would amount to an increase of State power.

I’m not sure that’s true. It’s an increase in the number of actions required, but that seems a different matter.

But anyway, on my view there are rights-violations in either case. Which case amounts to more isn’t obvious. Selective intervention gives those not intervened against a state-enforced privilege against those intervened against, which on my view constitutes a further rights-violation. Non-selective intervention gets rid of that rights-violation but substitutes a new one (the intervention against those previously not intervened against).

But on my view, again following Aquinas, if the choice is between an action that is a rights-violation and one that is likely to result in a rights-violation, the latter is to be preferred, since one bears greater responsibility for one’s own actions then for others’ responses to them; since denying equal status to gays is a rights-violation, while granting them equal status is merely likely to result in some rights-violations, the former wins.

Same position on immigration, incidentally. Opponents of open borders say that it’s wrong to let immigrants in so long as they have access to welfare benefits etc. But not letting someone travel and associate freely is a rights-violation, while letting them in to a region where they have access to welfare benefits is merely likely to lead to one. (I also happen to think denying free immigration is a worse harm than taxing people for welfare, just as kidnapping is worse than theft (and ditto for the gay-rights case); but not being a utilitarian I don’t base my case solely on such considerations, since I don’t think a lesser rights-violation is justified in order to prevent a greater.)